This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Attention all my fellow small blade smiths / blade makers... it's time to get angry.
At its upcoming AGM, the ITTF are going to vote on radically loosening the rules around blades... and I mean radically.
Under the new proposed rules, there will be no requirement to use timber in a blade at all.
Check out the agenda - see page 103 of this document: https://documents.ittf.sport/sites/default/files/public/2022-12/2022_AGM_documents_EN_0.pdf.
The current rule states:
2.4.2 At least 85% of the blade by thickness shall be of natural wood; an adhesive layer within the blade may be reinforced with fibrous material such as carbon fibre, glass fibre or compressed paper, but shall not be thicker than 7.5% of the total thickness or 0.35mm, whichever is the smaller.
The new rule will simply state:
The blade shall be made of one or more layers of natural wood or other solid materials, without cavities and not compressible.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think this is a very poorly worded rule change, that will have massive consequences for our segment of the industry.
The ITTF's rationale is as follows:
1. It is believed that a recent technical study by the industry on different racket blade materials reported that there is no significant difference to performance with racket blades of different materials.
2. Racket blade is currently not a piece of authorized equipment.
3. There is no guideline or mechanism to detect or monitor the current rule at a competition.
4. The current rule on percentage of the blade being natural wood is arbitrary.
5. Allowing the blade to be made of materials other than wood encourages innovative ideas from developers and manufacturers to look for new materials that may be less costly or longer lasting.
6. The requirement of using predominantly wood as the material is not environmentally appropriate and allowing other materials would also be in line with the IOC’s sustainability requirement for sports equipment.
7. All other rules in connection with the blade (shape, size, weight, covering, and continuity) would remain unchanged with the current proposal.
To me, the above smells like rubbish.
What is equally disturbing, is the ITTF's comments on what constitutes "lab testing" around the development of equipment.
The ITTF Equipment Committee states on page 48:
"3) Blade Material Liberalization
A sample set of different materials in blades was defined and measured in a new test setup. A camera system recorded the movements including spin and speed of impact. Through this report, an opening of materials in blade production will be discussed. Before changing any rule, the questions of sustainability, patent situation, the structure of an approval system and definition of lab testing must be answered."
This only suggests to me some large manufacturer has demonstrated new equipment that currently lies outside the rules, and now wants the rules changed to permit it.
Personally I think removing the requirement for blades to be mostly wood is a slippery slope that would damage the game massively.
If point one of their rationale were correct, and there is no significant difference to the performance of a wooden blade to a composite one (which is false) then why bother change to rules away from wooden blades at all?
I have no issue with innovation in blade-making... I make my living from it..
What I have an issue with, is sudden wholesale changes that profit large, rich and powerful firms over smaller firms like yours and mine.
Granted I make wooden blades for a living, so I'm biased.
And yes - this move would make redundant numerous years of my own IP development in one fell swoop, so obviously I am trying to protect my own patch here.
But I'm trying to protect yours too.
Ours is the only remaining sport where ANYBODY can pick up some tools, make their own equipment, and potentially compete at not just national but international level with it.
Personally, I think that's worth protecting.
Personally, I don't want the ITTF making regulation of blades a formal requirement by stealth - without additional protections, it could cut the bottom end of the industry out of the market.
Personally, I don't want large firms monopolising the market any further - it will be impossible for smaller firms to keep up with their IP development budgets... not just mine, but potentially yours too.
And personally, I think this has nothing to do with serving the game, and everything to do with serving the profit motive of larger interests.
But hey - maybe I'm alone in all this.
Maybe it doesn't matter, and people won't stop buying a cheap all-wood blade, to use a synthetic, non-biodegradable, and highly expensive imported item, which gives them a massive advantage in spin and speed.
What are your thoughts?
At its upcoming AGM, the ITTF are going to vote on radically loosening the rules around blades... and I mean radically.
Under the new proposed rules, there will be no requirement to use timber in a blade at all.
Check out the agenda - see page 103 of this document: https://documents.ittf.sport/sites/default/files/public/2022-12/2022_AGM_documents_EN_0.pdf.
The current rule states:
2.4.2 At least 85% of the blade by thickness shall be of natural wood; an adhesive layer within the blade may be reinforced with fibrous material such as carbon fibre, glass fibre or compressed paper, but shall not be thicker than 7.5% of the total thickness or 0.35mm, whichever is the smaller.
The new rule will simply state:
The blade shall be made of one or more layers of natural wood or other solid materials, without cavities and not compressible.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think this is a very poorly worded rule change, that will have massive consequences for our segment of the industry.
The ITTF's rationale is as follows:
1. It is believed that a recent technical study by the industry on different racket blade materials reported that there is no significant difference to performance with racket blades of different materials.
2. Racket blade is currently not a piece of authorized equipment.
3. There is no guideline or mechanism to detect or monitor the current rule at a competition.
4. The current rule on percentage of the blade being natural wood is arbitrary.
5. Allowing the blade to be made of materials other than wood encourages innovative ideas from developers and manufacturers to look for new materials that may be less costly or longer lasting.
6. The requirement of using predominantly wood as the material is not environmentally appropriate and allowing other materials would also be in line with the IOC’s sustainability requirement for sports equipment.
7. All other rules in connection with the blade (shape, size, weight, covering, and continuity) would remain unchanged with the current proposal.
To me, the above smells like rubbish.
What is equally disturbing, is the ITTF's comments on what constitutes "lab testing" around the development of equipment.
The ITTF Equipment Committee states on page 48:
"3) Blade Material Liberalization
A sample set of different materials in blades was defined and measured in a new test setup. A camera system recorded the movements including spin and speed of impact. Through this report, an opening of materials in blade production will be discussed. Before changing any rule, the questions of sustainability, patent situation, the structure of an approval system and definition of lab testing must be answered."
This only suggests to me some large manufacturer has demonstrated new equipment that currently lies outside the rules, and now wants the rules changed to permit it.
Personally I think removing the requirement for blades to be mostly wood is a slippery slope that would damage the game massively.
If point one of their rationale were correct, and there is no significant difference to the performance of a wooden blade to a composite one (which is false) then why bother change to rules away from wooden blades at all?
I have no issue with innovation in blade-making... I make my living from it..
What I have an issue with, is sudden wholesale changes that profit large, rich and powerful firms over smaller firms like yours and mine.
Granted I make wooden blades for a living, so I'm biased.
And yes - this move would make redundant numerous years of my own IP development in one fell swoop, so obviously I am trying to protect my own patch here.
But I'm trying to protect yours too.
Ours is the only remaining sport where ANYBODY can pick up some tools, make their own equipment, and potentially compete at not just national but international level with it.
Personally, I think that's worth protecting.
Personally, I don't want the ITTF making regulation of blades a formal requirement by stealth - without additional protections, it could cut the bottom end of the industry out of the market.
Personally, I don't want large firms monopolising the market any further - it will be impossible for smaller firms to keep up with their IP development budgets... not just mine, but potentially yours too.
And personally, I think this has nothing to do with serving the game, and everything to do with serving the profit motive of larger interests.
But hey - maybe I'm alone in all this.
Maybe it doesn't matter, and people won't stop buying a cheap all-wood blade, to use a synthetic, non-biodegradable, and highly expensive imported item, which gives them a massive advantage in spin and speed.
What are your thoughts?
Last edited: